role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

May 16, 2011

39th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2011-May-16 (PDF)

L121A - Mon 16 May 2011 / Lun 16 mai 2011

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Monday 16 May 2011 Lundi 16 mai 2011

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

ENERGY POLICIES

ENERGY POLICIES

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

ENERGY POLICIES

EDUCATION FUNDING

ENERGY POLICIES

ENERGY POLICIES

EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES

FAMILY HEALTH TEAMS

FOREST INDUSTRY

FOREST INDUSTRY

EDUCATION FUNDING

TENDERING PROCESS

LABOUR RELATIONS

TAXATION

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

DAIRY FARMERS

THE CHILDREN’S STOREFRONT

HAN PARK

NORTH GRENVILLE PUBLIC LIBRARY

BUDDHA’S LIGHT

VEGETARIAN FOOD FAIR

GASOLINE TAX

ANDREW FLECK

CHILD CARE SERVICES

BLADDER CANCER

OAKVILLE ARTS AND CULTURE

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

HOUSE SITTINGS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

BANNING COLLUSION IN

ELECTORAL ADVERTISING ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 INTERDISANT

LA COLLUSION DANS LE CADRE

DE LA PUBLICITÉ ÉLECTORALE

PETITIONS

DOG OWNERSHIP

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

PHOTO IDENTIFICATION

WIND TURBINES

TAXATION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

TAXATION

The House met at 1030.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Good morning. Please remain standing for the Lord’s Prayer, followed by the Islamic prayer.

Prayers.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Ted McMeekin: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to introduce—and thank you for accommodating him in the Speaker’s gallery this morning—a good friend of mine, the executive director and president of the Canadian Urban Institute and my former mayor, His Worship Fred Eisenberger. Welcome, Fred.

Mr. John O’Toole: It’s my pleasure to introduce Wanda Secord, Lisa Sarsfield and Wendy Hayes, who are from the Durham Children’s Aid Society, visiting us here today at Queen’s Park. Welcome.

Hon. Carol Mitchell: It is my pleasure to welcome the Dairy Farmers of Ontario, who are in attendance today, and a special note to Peter Gould, Bill Emmott and all the members of the board. Welcome, and thank you for all of your hard work.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I too would like to welcome the Dairy Farmers of Ontario, but more importantly—well, not more importantly, but just as importantly—I’d like to recognize two of my constituents, Doug and Gail Puddicombe. They are here today to visit the firefighters’ memorial, where a relative of Gail’s is recognized for his sacrifice. I want to thank them for coming to Queen’s Park while they were here for such an important visit to Toronto.

Hon. John Wilkinson: I would like to welcome to the House two of my constituents who are here for Dairy Farmers of Ontario Day: Dave Murray and Jim Fitzgerald.

Mr. Norman W. Sterling: It’s my pleasure to introduce Carina Hochgeschurz and her mom, Colleen. Carina was a page with us in the last session of the Parliament. She enjoyed it so much she’s returning to see me again.

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: I’m delighted that we are joined today by people from the Hastings county children’s aid society. We have youth, staff and members of the board joining us today.

Mr. Steve Clark: I would like to introduce two visitors from Family and Children’s Services of Leeds and Grenville: executive director Allan Hogan and board member Tony Barnes.

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: I too want to welcome people from Sudbury, from the children’s aid society: Colette Prévost, the executive director, and Dan Coté, the chair of the board. Welcome to Toronto and enjoy question period.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I would like to welcome to the House today members of the Family and Children’s Services of Renfrew County: Daniel Ryan and Arijana Tomicic and youth David.

I would also like to welcome to the House this morning, joining us in the gallery, the Ontario PC summer interns.

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I would like to introduce to the House this morning my good friend Gisèle Hébert, who’s the executive director of the North Bay Parry Sound children’s aid society. She’s here with Rick Sapinski, who’s our board chair.

Also today in the members’ gallery I have visiting Claudette Guthrie, who is the mom of my staffer Adrienne Guthrie, who’s here with us today as well.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Speaker, as you’ve probably figured out, today is children’s aid society lobby day. I am pleased to introduce Paul Zarnke of the Peel Children’s Aid Society and Trish Keachie of Dufferin Child and Family Services.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: I’ve been asked on behalf of my colleague from Guelph to welcome Kyla Fishburn’s father, David Fishburn, and some of her family—Robin Fishburn and Jean Fishburn—Kyla, of course, is one of your pages; and from Willowdale, Frank Blum and Anne Shelton; and from London, Joanne Maddeford, to the Legislature to watch the proceedings.

Mr. Ted Arnott: I’m glad to welcome to the House today representatives of Family and Children’s Services of Guelph and Wellington County, as well as acknowledge the presence of members of the Halton Children’s Aid Society. Welcome to Queen’s Park today.

Hon. John Gerretsen: Speaker, I wonder if you could help me welcome members of the Kingston and Frontenac children’s aid society, including board president Brian Devlin, executive director Raymond Muldoon, and Yvonne Cooper, who’s the communications coordinator.

Mr. Randy Hillier: I’d like to welcome to the House today on their lobby day members from the Lanark children’s aid society: Suzanne Geoffrion and Melissa Hillier.

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I would like to welcome the Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies, along with all of the children’s aid societies who are here today and many youth who have joined us from around the province at Queen’s Park today, including Mary Ballantyne, the executive director, and Donna Denny, the past president. Many of them will be meeting with MPPs here today, and I know that our members are very much looking forward to those meetings. Welcome.

Mr. Norm Miller: I am pleased to welcome, from family youth and child services of Muskoka, whom I just had a very productive meeting with, executive director Marty Rutledge, Jennifer Scott, Anthony Weiler and Christopher Finlay here to Queen’s Park today.

Mr. Bruce Crozier: I would like my colleagues to join me in welcoming folks from the Windsor-Essex Children’s Aid Society, they being Bill Bevan, executive director; Shane Renaud, board president; Norman King, the past president; Jamie Henderson—a good friend of my friend Gerry Phillips—a member of the board; Linda Goodhew, director of children’s resources; and Jemima Manayah. Welcome.

Mr. Robert Bailey: I’d like to welcome to the Legislature today John Phair, a councillor from the township of Enniskillen and also a reporter with Ontario Farmer, who will be joining us shortly.

M. Jean-Marc Lalonde: It’s a pleasure to introduce and welcome visitors from the far east: Raymond Lemay, CEO; and Jean Dugas, chair of the board of Valoris Service for children and adults of Prescott-Russell, and also Jean-Louis Diamond of the Hawkesbury employment office. Bienvenue à Queen’s Park.

Mr. Frank Klees: I want to welcome to the House today members of the York region children’s aid society: President Tammy Ward; immediate past president, the Rev. M.J. Perry; committee member Maddie Di Muccio; executive director Patrick Lake, and communications director Jennifer Grant. Welcome.

M me France Gélinas: J’aimerais présenter à l’Assemblée la directrice générale de la société d’aide à l’enfance, M me Colette Prévost, ainsi que le président du conseil, M. Daniel Coté.

It’s my pleasure to introduce to the House the president and executive director of the Sudbury children’s aid society, Daniel Coté and Colette Prévost.

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: I’m very pleased to welcome, from Kitchener–Waterloo family and children’s services, the president, Mr. Royston Simon, and Karen.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: It gives me great pleasure this morning to introduce the executive director and members of the board of the Ottawa children’s aid society. Welcome to Queen’s Park today.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): We have with us in the Speaker’s gallery today the ambassador of the state of Kuwait to Canada, His Excellency Ali Al-Sammak. Please join me in welcoming our guest to the Legislature today. Your Excellency, welcome to Queen’s Park.

Seated in the Speaker’s gallery, I’d like to welcome, from Family and Children’s Services of St. Thomas and Elgin, executive director Rod Potgieter; board members Jennifer Paul-O’Donnell, Cheryl Fish and Don Lawrence; and youth in transition workers Tabitha MacArthur and Kelsie Hitchen. They are joined by three youths: Helen, Matthew and Hailey. Welcome to Queen’s Park today.

Also seated in the Speaker’s gallery this morning is a group of individuals whom I’d like to introduce: John Hergott; Bruce MacKay; Patrick Croley; Phil Reid; Anne Reid; Erica Beck; Judy Anderson; Neil Anderson; Bill Davidson; Father Yves Fournier; my nephew Nicholas Peters; and the one and only Joe Peters, my brother. Maybe at some point down the road, he may move back to Elgin county. Who knows?

As well, on behalf of the member from Kenora–Rainy River and page Jonathan Hampton, I welcome to the Speaker’s gallery today Jonathan’s grandparents, Elie and Gay Martel—Elie as well being a former member of this chamber. Welcome back to Queen’s Park today. It’s my understanding as well that Jonathan’s mother, Shelley, another former member, will be joining us through the day today at the Legislature. Welcome back to Queen’s Park.

On behalf of page Christian Gill and the member from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock, we’d like to welcome mother, Anne Gill, and father, Ken Gill, to the Legislature today.

I also take this opportunity to wish my executive assistant, Maggie Head, a happy birthday today.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ENERGY POLICIES

Mr. Tim Hudak: A question to the Minister of Energy: There are two things guaranteed under a McGuinty Liberal government—hydro bills will skyrocket and you’ll increase taxes. I want to give Ontario families relief from skyrocketing hydro bills, which is why an Ontario PC government will end the Premier’s sweetheart deal with Samsung that is driving up bills across this province.

Minister, last week you said that there was a substantial penalty if the deal were ended. In fact, you said that you personally would make that clear and give numbers to the public by the end of the day Tuesday. You did not deliver. Your infrastructure minister then came out the next day and admitted that you had no numbers.

Why don’t you come clean? Exactly what kind of penalty clause do you claim that you put in your sweetheart deal with Samsung?

Hon. Brad Duguid: Last week, the Leader of the Opposition made what I think is very obviously a rookie mistake when he announced his reckless energy policy. His energy policy will destroy our efforts to build a globe-leading clean energy economy and it will kill thousands of clean energy jobs.

Ontario families are now getting a glimpse of what that leader is all about, and they don’t like it. Even his own caucus members are lining up against him. First, we had the member for Oxford backpedalling within hours of his leader’s announcement last week. This weekend, we learned of another caucus member at odds with his own leader’s reckless energy policy—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Oxford will withdraw the comment that he just made.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Withdraw.

Hon. Brad Duguid: The member for Newmarket–Aurora now sits on a board of a clean energy company that his leader’s energy policy wants to hammer. Maybe the Leader of the Opposition can explain that one to—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the minister: The Ontario PC team caucus and candidates believe—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. Ministers will please come to order.

Please continue.

Mr. Tim Hudak: The Ontario PC caucus candidates are united in opposing your sweetheart deal that is driving up hydro bills and causing them to skyrocket across the province. Minister, you know this: Skyrocketing hydro bills hurt families and they kill jobs, and your sweetheart Samsung deal is going to drive rates even higher.

You keep defending it, and you say that you want to keep the details of this sweetheart deal a secret from the general public. In January 2010, you simply had a fancy photo op for a framework agreement to begin four years of contract talks for power down the road.

There is time to cut our losses and the sweetheart deal. Minister, back up your claims. Make what you claim is—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Minister?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I think it’s pretty obvious that the Leader of the Opposition’s launch of his energy plan last week has not gone well. Families reject his plan to tear down all we’ve built and to kiss away billions of dollars of investment in thousands of clean energy jobs.

Ontario families want clean energy and the jobs that we’re creating, so I find it just a little ironic that the Leader of the Opposition has a plan to destroy our clean energy economy while a member of his own caucus is sitting on the board of directors of a company that’s trying to participate in the clean energy economy that his plan is going to absolutely hammer.

Does the leader not see the fact as well that the member for Oxford jumped offside within hours of his plan coming up, because the member for Oxford is concerned for the 900 jobs that his leader wants to kill? It’s very obvious that the—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Final supplementary.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Minister, you actually signed this sweetheart framework deal with Samsung. It’s your signature on that bill. But you failed to back up your claim of a substantial monetary penalty. This tells us that there is no such thing. If it were true, the minister would make it open to the public so that they could see the details of the sweetheart deal that you signed.

I don’t know what world you live in, but families are tired of your skyrocketing hydro bills. They want to see change, they want to see relief and they want to see an Ontario PC government that will give families relief on their taxes and skyrocketing hydro bills.

Minister, I’ll ask you this time: Will you please make this so-called substantial monetary penalty public today? You said you would last Tuesday; we don’t think you actually have it. Won’t you come clean?

Hon. Brad Duguid: What this province needs is leadership that wants to build this province up, not tear this province down; build up our clean energy economy, not tear it apart; create thousands of clean energy jobs, not kill those jobs—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. The member from Halton. The member from Lanark. The Minister of Infrastructure. We have a lot of guests who are joining us here in the chamber, and I’m sure they all want to hear the questions and the answers.

Minister?

Hon. Brad Duguid: We have such leadership in the Premier we have in this province today. And where’s the Premier today? He’s in Windsor. He’s visiting CS Wind, where 700 direct and indirect jobs are being created—jobs that our policies support and your policies want to kill. Later on, he’ll be visiting Canadian Solar in Guelph; 500 jobs are being created there, 500 jobs in Guelph that you want to take away from the good people of Guelph. Our Premier is there because he’s the leader—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. New question.

ENERGY POLICIES

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Minister of Energy: Quite frankly, nobody believes the McGuinty Liberals’ phoney job claims anymore. You claimed here in the House 800 jobs in Sarnia, Ontario; it turns out there are only—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. Minister of the Environment, Minister of Agriculture, government House leader, please come to order.

Please continue.

Mr. Tim Hudak: You claimed that there were 800 jobs created in Sarnia. It turns out that there are only eight, including a security guy and somebody who mows the lawn.

Nobody believes your claims anymore. In fact, what you don’t understand is that skyrocketing hydro bills hurt Ontario families and they kill jobs; 300,000 manufacturing jobs lost under the McGuinty government from higher taxes and higher hydro rates. That’s why Ontario families want to see change to get relief on hydro bills.

I’ll ask you one more time, Minister. You’re bound and determined to drive up hydro bills even more. Why won’t you release the terms of this—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Minister?

Hon. Brad Duguid: This Leader of the Opposition refuses to take my word for the fact that 13,000 jobs, indeed, were created as a result of our Green Energy Act last year, so maybe he’ll take the word of workers directly.

Misty Oakley is a Siliken employee with three young children. Miss Oakley was on social assistance before securing a job at the solar manufacturing plant. She said that employment with Siliken means security and a good future for her and her family. Why does the Leader of the Opposition want to take her good future away? Why does the Leader of the Opposition want to take her job away? Why does he want to insult her by suggesting that she doesn’t even exist?

Come on out into the rest of Ontario. Join us in meeting the thousands of clean energy workers who are benefiting from our clean energy economy. Get out of your bubble here at Queen’s Park. Get out there—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Talk about somebody living in a bubble, Mr. Speaker. These guys are so out of touch, they don’t know that hydro rates hurt families and kill jobs when they skyrocket under the McGuinty Liberal government.

Let’s cut through the chaff, let’s cut through all of your bluster, Minister, and just come clean. We want you to release the terms of the framework agreement that you yourself signed with Samsung—the same deal that’s going to drive up hydro rates even more for struggling seniors, families and small businesses. You claim that there’s a substantial monetary penalty in this agreement that you signed. If that’s the case, put it on the floor of the Legislature and let Ontario families decide whether this deal is worth higher and higher hydro rates.

Hon. Brad Duguid: Our efforts to build a clean energy economy have put thousands of people across this province back to work, but the Leader of the Opposition stands opposed to this recovery. He stands opposed to the thousands of Ontarians who were previously unemployed but now have found work in our clean energy economy.

I want you to hear a quote from Ian Karleff from AS Solar. This is what he had to say: “The FIT and microFIT programs have been fantastic creators of jobs. AS Solar has created 14 brand new jobs. We were able to find highly skilled employees with lengthy logistics background all laid off in the past few years from the automotive sector.”

We’re putting Ontarians back to work. The last thing they need is a Leader of the Opposition who wants to put them back on the unemployment line, and that’s what his clean energy plan would do.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Final supplementary.

Mr. Tim Hudak: The minister in his bubble simply does not understand that skyrocketing hydro bills hurt hard-working families. They’ve killed jobs in our province. We’ve lost some 300,000 manufacturing jobs under the McGuinty Liberals with higher taxes and skyrocketing hydro bills. I don’t even know if this minister has even read the deal that he signed. I have no idea if this minister has signed the framework agreement. He boasted last week that there was a substantial monetary penalty. He said that he would make it public. He has failed to do so.

Minister, did you even read the deal that you signed? How much exactly are you going to drive up hydro bills to fulfill this sweetheart deal with a foreign multinational corporation? Won’t you please come clean and put the terms before the assembly? What are you trying to hide?

Hon. Brad Duguid: Last week, the Leader of the Opposition made a huge mistake by introducing a reckless energy policy that’s going to put thousands of people out of work. If he doesn’t take my word for it, take the word of the hundreds of people who are now writing in to us with concerns about where he wants to take this province.

Let me quote Jim Cummings from Clearly Solar: “Your government showed tremendous leadership with the introduction of the Green Energy Act and the FIT programs. My company is living proof that this initiative is creating jobs. In one short year, we’ve hired over 15 people.”

He went on to say, “Mr. Hudak announced that if elected, he would kill the entire FIT program and all the jobs that go with it. This is the kind of simplistic nonsense that could kill our industry.”

We, on this side of the House, agree with Jim Cummings.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Acting Premier. On Friday, the Information and Privacy Commissioner launched an investigation into the handling of freedom-of-information requests by the Minister of Finance. Will this government be reviewing their practices, or do they still plan to pretend that everything is fine?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Let me say, first of all, that we are very happy to work with the office of the privacy commissioner. We’re very confident that all the processes that needed to be followed were followed.

I know that this House has heard the Premier and the Minister of Finance talk about the compliance rate that is in place under our government: 86% for 2010. That is a compliance rate, in terms of responding to these requests, that stands in stark contrast to previous governments—PCs at 57% and NDP at 50%. An 86% compliance rate—which indicates we want people to have information.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The people who make this province work every day are the people whom we all work for. The government and government documents aren’t the private property of the Liberal Party.

Last week, we learned that political staff were trying to block the release of audits and block information about the government’s unfair tax scheme. Why won’t the government admit that they have a secrecy habit, one that they need to quit right away?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Because that’s just not true. It’s just not true that we don’t want people to have information. The member has omitted to mention that for that request, all of that information was transferred to the Ministry of Tourism, where it rightly needed to be. That’s what I mean when I say that all of the processes that needed to be followed were followed. We are very committed to accountability.

I think the member opposite knows that we are interested in making sure that people have the information that they need. But the member opposite also knows that there are procedures. We follow the procedures, and we will work with the privacy commissioner as she does her review.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I think the minister knows that the Minister of Finance’s political staff actually tried to get documents blocked from being released. Those are the facts.

Today in Windsor, the Premier will tout the benefits of a contract that he signed on behalf of the people of Ontario that he refuses to make public, just like we’re not allowed to know how much families are on the hook for to TransCanada for the cancelled gas plant in Oakville.

Why does this government believe that they can make multi-billion-dollar commitments without showing Ontario families the fine print?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We don’t believe that. We believe that information that is generated by the government needs to be available to people, which is why we have complied 86% of the time in the time frame that its needed—much better than previous governments. We’re very committed to accountability. In fact, we’ve tightened rules around accountability. Ministries are very clear that they have a responsibility to follow the rules, to disclose information.

In the case that the member is talking about, the information was transferred to the Ministry of Tourism, which is where it should have been in the first place.

The member opposite knows that we are following the rules. We will work with the privacy commissioner to make sure that people who ask for information from the government get it in a timely manner.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also to the Acting Premier. In 1998, a member of this Legislature declared, “We’re buying a pig in a poke.... The public has a billion and a half of their tax dollars into this thing, but they’re going to have no right to look at the document that outlines the deal....” That was the chair of cabinet speaking about the 407 contract.

Will the Acting Premier explain why that contract was made public but this one isn’t?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: What I will say is, as I have said, we are very committed to making sure that people have the information that they need. What we’re not going to do is, we’re not going to compromise commercial dealings at the moment when they are the most sensitive. But as information can be revealed, we will make sure that people have the information that they need, which is what we have done. That is our record. We will continue to provide information as people request it.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier has insisted that this deal will lead to jobs and investment, but people can’t see if there is any guarantee of jobs because that part of the contract is secret—just like the Premier insists that cancelling the private plant in Oakville won’t cost a thing, while hiding the contract details that could prove him wrong.

Can the government show the people of Ontario the job guarantees in black and white, or are they asking us to buy a pig in a poke?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: What we can show the people of Ontario is the jobs that are being created all over the province: the jobs in Windsor, the jobs in Tillsonburg, the jobs in Don Mills, the jobs in Burlington, Fort Erie, Guelph, Woodbridge, London, Oakville and Hamilton. This economy in Ontario is turning a corner, and it’s turning a corner in large part because of the partnerships that we have put in place with the private sector, the investments that we have made in green energy, and the framework that we’ve put in place that is encouraging industry to come to Ontario.

That is what we will show the people of Ontario. We are very pleased that that process is in place, because that’s what people need in the province, in Hamilton and in Niagara. People need jobs. That’s what we’re producing.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, the people of Ontario have heard promises before. In 2002, the Premier promised to roll back rates on the 407. We’re paying more than ever.

People deserve the facts. When will this government start making these contracts public so that families know the facts and not just promises from a government that has let them down far too many times?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: When we came to office, we challenged the contract that the previous government had put in place on the 407. We were not able to overturn that contract, but we are extending the 407 and the province is going to own and operate the 407. Had that previous government not put that contract in place, we would have been able to build the 407 extension by now.

The member opposite knows full well that we are coming out of an economic downturn. We are working very hard in this province to create jobs, and the fact is, those jobs exist. Those jobs exist across the province: 700 jobs in Windsor, 300 jobs in Don Mills, 60 jobs in Welland, 150 jobs in Burlington and 225 jobs in Fort Erie. We will continue to put the framework in place to encourage industry to come here, because that’s what the people of Ontario—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. New question.

ENERGY POLICIES

Mr. John Yakabuski: To the Minister of Energy: The Ontario PC leader believes that renewable energy must be part of Ontario’s power supply mix. Premier McGuinty only believes that it must be part of the supply mix if it is expensive. He has already driven away 300,000 manufacturing jobs by driving up hydro rates, which are now up 150% for everyone on time-of-use pricing. Now he tells Ontario families that they will have to pay 46% more on hydro bills, which he will spend on his expensive energy experiments.

Minister, where is the cabinet on this, and why can’t you get him to understand that he’s still on the same path that leads to his legacy of 300,000 killed jobs in manufacturing in this province?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I know the member opposite doesn’t want to admit it, because it’ll kill his story, but the fact is, the Ontario Energy Board reported last month that, indeed, rates are flat year over year as a result of our clean energy benefit—something that that party fails to support. If we were to go in the direction of his leader, that means an instant 10% increase on bills, because that’s part of their plan.

I think it’s not often that the Leader of the Opposition says something that makes sense, but I want to quote him on this. This is something he said not too long ago: “Too often, politicians cannot resist the temptation to interfere. Regrettably, that was also true under the Eves government when we pulled a 180-degree turn. This constant change of direction in government policy means investors no longer find Ontario a safe and stable environment in which to invest....”

It’s too bad that he doesn’t take his own advice when it comes to our clean energy policy.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mr. John Yakabuski: I’d love him to ask seniors across this province if they think their hydro bills have flatlined.

There were renewable projects in Ontario before your green energy experiments, and there will be under an Ontario PC government. But an Ontario PC—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): My apologies. Stop the clock. I remind honourable ministers, particularly the ministers this is directed to, of the motto of this place, which is to hear the other side. The honourable member is asking a question directed at one of your ministers, and I hope you would be respectful so that your minister could hear the question.

Please continue.

Mr. John Yakabuski: An Ontario PC government will put Ontario families first. We will pursue renewable energy projects and power at prices that families can afford.

Premier McGuinty used to say, “There is a direct correlation between Hydro’s rates and our rate of unemployment in Ontario. As the rates go up, so will the rate of unemployment.” Then he increased hydro rates by 150%, if you’re on time-of-use, and killed 300,000 manufacturing jobs. Now he’s telling Ontario families to get ready for him to increase their hydro bills by another 46%.

Why is a change in government the only way to stop a serial job killer in his tracks?

Hon. Brad Duguid: The Leader of the Opposition’s plan to destroy Ontario’s clean energy economy takes us back to the days of burning dirty coal. It will not only take jobs away from this province; it will impact the health of Ontarians. And this is what the—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The same lecture I just delivered to the government side holds true for the opposition side as well.

Please continue.

Hon. Brad Duguid: I think the members opposite should listen to what the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment had to say about their plan: “The Conservatives’ proposal to kill” clean “energy will be a disaster for human health and the environment. It will be returning to coal—the world’s most climate-destructive fuel—and the thousands of illnesses and hundreds of deaths that coal causes in Ontario each year. ‘Doctors are appalled that Mr. Hudak would embrace such an irresponsible plan.’”

We stand with people who want to build a stronger province and create jobs and a healthier future for our—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. New question.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr. Rosario Marchese: My question is to the Minister of Education. Information skills are crucial to the success of our students in the 21st century. Students need school libraries staffed with trained teacher-librarians to develop these skills. But in Ontario, according to the report from People for Education, fewer students than ever have access to teacher-librarians and school libraries are closing left, right and centre.

Why is the McGuinty government allowing the gradual yet dramatic death of school libraries in Ontario?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: I’m very happy to have this opportunity to clarify for all the members of this assembly that there was only one government that actually cut funding for libraries and library resources, and that was the previous government.

Our government, on the other hand, has increased funding in education overall by 46%, but certainly directly to libraries as well, because we see them as very important resources. I think that if you read the report carefully, you will appreciate that the number of school librarians has actually increased under the term of this government. We will continue to work with boards.

I, for one, have had the opportunity to visit many schools where one of the first features in the school that they want to take me to is their library, because it is such a wonderful and valuable resource that supports student learning and student success in our schools.

So I say, especially to those locally elected boards that might be considering pulling back—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: We are witnessing the dramatic death of school libraries in Ontario, and she says everything is great. I just don’t get it.

She also knows that library cuts are taking place because school boards are struggling to balance their budgets as they deal with aging buildings, declining enrolment and increased student needs.

Instead of blaming boards, as she has done, why won’t the minister give their students the best shot at success and put in place a policy—and funding, by the way, wouldn’t be a problem—to ensure that all Ontario students have access to school libraries and trained teacher-librarians?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: Again, I’m very happy to have this opportunity to educate the honourable member. Since coming to government, this government has increased funding for school librarians and school libraries by 12%; that, in the face of declining enrolment. I would also say to the honourable member that in addition to this commitment, over $40 million has been committed over four years for elementary school libraries. This coming year, boards are receiving $589 million in funding particularly for textbooks and those many resources that will be placed in libraries.

Again, I say to the honourable member, we have been increasing resources to school boards. There are boards that are actually looking for innovative ways to invest in their libraries. I’m very disappointed that there are—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. New question.

ENERGY POLICIES

Mr. Ted McMeekin: My question is for the Minister of Energy. Two key indicators of sound economic policy are job creation and attracting private sector investment. The recent global recession has highlighted our need to look beyond traditional areas of expertise. With a highly skilled workforce and an economy recovering better than most, Ontario needs to build and lead the way in creating jobs.

Minister, all hyperbole aside, how is our province’s energy policy supporting workers and creating new opportunities?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I want to thank the member for raising an exceptionally important question.

Job creation and the attraction of private sector investment are at the heart of building a strong new economy like the one we’re building right here in Ontario when it comes to clean energy. That’s why it almost defied belief last week when the Leader of the Opposition came out with his reckless plan to drive billions of dollars of investment out of this province and kill thousands of clean energy jobs.

I want to quote what the Windsor Star thought of this plan. They said, “Hudak’s antiquated attitude toward energy doesn’t just stand to harm the environment. It will be a colossal blow to this region, which is in the midst of a diversification plan driven by the green energy sector.”

We stand with communities and workers across this province. Ontario families will reject their plan.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Ted McMeekin: Minister, clean energy is our future in Ontario, North America and around the world. Those jurisdictions astute enough to seize the opportunity for global leadership in this new economy will prosper in the decades ahead.

Last week, the Leader of the Opposition babbled on about his destructive job-killing plan. Already his plan is being called everything from short-sighted to disastrous.

I don’t want to see an economic tsunami sweep across Ontario. Before the member from Newmarket–Aurora has to sell his green energy shares, can you commit to continuing to champion our province as open for business and new green energy investments from around the world?

Hon. Brad Duguid: Yes, absolutely, Ontario will always be open to business under this government and under the leadership of this Premier. We reject the approach taken by the members opposite. We will fight their job-killing agenda every step of the way.

We do, however, welcome the support of the member for Newmarket–Aurora, who we now know sits on the board of directors of a clean energy company, a company that his leader wants to hammer. I wish him all the best with his feed-in-tariff project and thank him for believing in clean renewable wind energy, getting off of coal and creating jobs. Even with those feelings, we know that his views and those of his leader may not exactly align, but we welcome his support for our clean energy act. We welcome his support to help us build jobs across this province and build a stronger economy.

ENERGY POLICIES

Mr. Peter Shurman: My question is also to the Minister of Energy. Last week, we showed why the job numbers you’ve been using to defend the sweetheart Samsung deal cannot be believed. Even those in the renewable energy industry are coming forward to say that you’ve been grossly over-inflating job numbers. For instance, you said the largest solar farm in North America would have 800 jobs, but there are only eight permanent workers, which includes one guy who mows the lawn and the guy who guards the lawn mower.

The only place Samsung may have created jobs is in Windsor. Is every family in Ontario supposed to pay 46% more on their hydro bills so the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Economic Development can shovel pork into their ridings?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I ask the honourable member to withdraw the comment, please.

Mr. Peter Shurman: Withdrawn.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister?

Hon. Brad Duguid: The PC Party promise to tear down our clean energy economy and kill thousands of jobs in Ontario is being rejected by families right across this province. A few days ago, and even today, they had the audacity to stand in this House and suggest not only do they want to kill jobs across this province, but they’re calling into question the fact that workers who are out there working very hard across this province in our clean energy economy do not even exist.

I’d like to introduce you to a young lady by the name of Misty Oakley. She’s a Siliken employee with three young children. Ms. Oakley was on social assistance before securing a job at a solar manufacturing plant. She said that employment with Siliken means good security and a good future for her and her family.

We care about people like Ms. Oakley. We’re going to work for people like Ms. Oakley. We’re going to fight—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Shurman: What’s being rejected by Ontario families is that dying government over there. Windsor families and businesses have been losing jobs and investors because of high-priced power generated by Premier McGuinty’s expensive energy experiments. The local minister stood by and said nothing about the Premier’s “buy high, sell low” energy policy, which has our neighbours and competitors laughing at your economic mismanagement. Ontario businesses and the families they employ are not laughing at your legacy of killing 300,000 manufacturing jobs, and yet you’re still on a collision course to kill more jobs.

Spain says you’ll kill 2.2 jobs for every job you create. Italy says you’re killing up to 6.9 manufacturing jobs with every job you claim to create.

What makes you think Ontario families should pay with their jobs for the McGuinty Liberals’ seat loss prevention program?

Hon. Brad Duguid: We’ve not only heard from members of the PC caucus; we’ve heard from countless workers across this province, we’re hearing from Ontario families and we’re hearing from numerous Ontario businesses. What they’re telling us is that they do not want to go in the direction that that Leader of the Opposition’s plan is going. They do not want him to kill our clean energy economy. They want to maintain the thousands of jobs that we’re creating.

Today, 20 businesses in the Ottawa area sent a letter to the Leader of the Opposition, urging him to reverse his promise to kill our clean energy policy and the thousands of clean energy jobs across this province. This is what the letter says: “Mr. Hudak, business seeks a stable economic climate investment. Your party’s decision has introduced uncertainty into Ontario’s economic future.”

If they really cared about our economy, if they really cared about jobs, if they really cared about a cleaner health—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. New question.

EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: My question is to the Minister of Labour. According to a major Workers’ Action Centre report released last week, one in three low-wage workers has had wages unfairly withheld or outright stolen by employers. For some workers, that means paycheques are short hours; for others, it means being denied vacation pay or being forced to work outrageous overtime hours for no pay at all. When the Workers’ Action Centre contacted the Minister of Labour to set up a meeting to discuss the deplorable situation, we would like to know why you wouldn’t meet with them.

Hon. Charles Sousa: I’m not aware of the request for the meeting, but I do know this: I very much value the report that was brought forward by the Workers’ Action Centre. I value even more the tremendous amount of work that our workers do. everyone who works deserves to be paid. I’ve acknowledged the fact that people are vulnerable out there. It’s why we’ve doubled the number of inspectors that we have. It’s why we’ve increased the number of inspections directly to those areas affected. It’s why we’ve now retrieved over $65 million in lost wages over the last number of years that we’ve been in power, much more than the opposite members have done when they were there.

Ninety-seven prosecutions were all that was had in those years; we’ve now had over 1,800. We’ll continue to address those very issues, and we support our workers.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Again to the Minister of Labour: According to the report, the situation in Ontario today for many workers amounts to what they call wage theft. Minister, your government has dealt a serious blow to these workers with your Open for Business legislation. You now force workers to talk to their employers first, rather than make safer, anonymous complaints.

When will this government take the plight of Ontario’s vulnerable workers seriously and finally enforce its very own labour laws?

Hon. Charles Sousa: It is actually very true that we’ve made some changes to our Employment Standards Act. It’s absolutely true that we’ve modernized and we’ve made more efficient and diversified the process. We do want those employees to receive their funds. It’s why we’ve made the changes to encourage that dialogue so that we can get early resolution. We’ve increased the number of staff required to reduce the backlog and we’ve encouraged dialogue between both parties.

Always keep in mind that if there’s intimidation or if there’s lack of understanding, they do not have to go that route. We encourage them to do so. As a result, claims have been reduced, more money has been received, people are being addressed and they’ve now got tools available to them with our ministry to facilitate that process. We fully support our workers.

FAMILY HEALTH TEAMS

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I’ve got a question this morning for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. I know this government is committed to ensuring high-quality health care close to home. Since 2003, we’ve seen a number of investments in a number of initiatives aimed at ensuring this goal.

A great example of this, throughout the province, is the expansion of family health teams. These are teams of doctors, nurses and other health professionals who work together to provide better care for their patients. Minister, through the Speaker to you: Could you please tell the Legislature about how Ontario’s family health teams are improving that access to health care and improving the quality of health care for the people in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you to the member from Oakville for this question. I’m very happy to have the opportunity to outline how the expansion of family health teams is benefiting Ontarians.

This government has announced the creation of 200 family health teams right across this province. They’re already caring for over 2.6 million Ontarians, and over half a million of those did not have a doctor before the creation of that family health team. When fully up and running, these 200 family health teams will provide care for three million people.

Family health teams are an exciting new innovation in primary care. They’re ensuring that people have access to care in an interdisciplinary setting. I’m very, very proud of the work that these teams are doing, and I know that the government will continue to invest in them because they’re good for the people in Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I fully agree: Family health teams are providing excellent service to the people of Ontario. I have a family health team in my own riding.

Many members, I know, would like to see an expansion of family health teams in their own communities; certainly, constituents in my own community would welcome the improved access to health care that a new family health team would bring to Oakville. Would the minister please update the House on the status of family health teams in Ontario and, more specifically, within my own riding of Oakville?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: First, I’d like to congratulate the member from Oakville for his tireless advocacy for the people in his community.

The issue of a second family health team in Oakville is something I know the member is very passionate about. He’s spoken to me about this on several occasions. I’m very, very happy to say that on Wednesday of this week, I will be in Oakville opening the second family health team in Oakville, the Oakmed family health team. It will have seven physicians, a nurse practitioner and other health care professionals. It will provide excellent care to the people of Oakville. In fact, this new family health team will provide care to over 9,000 people.

This is one more example of the great successes coming out of this government’s family health team model. We’re very proud of this work.

FOREST INDUSTRY

Mr. Randy Hillier: My question is to the Minister of Northern Development. In 2005, the minister’s forest sector council noted that rising costs were undermining forestry in Ontario. Then they brought in the HST, raised the hydro prices to the point where industry can no longer compete, and brought in more and more regulation and government control, choking off the industry. The result: over 60 mills closed and 40,000 jobs lost.

Now the government is planning to transfer the cost of the road construction and maintenance program onto the struggling forest sector. Minister, your government is responsible for $1 billion wasted in eHealth. The same $1 billion would have provided 13 years of road construction and maintenance. How can you justify further damage to forestry and the honest, hard-working members there?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I think, as the member knows—certainly, members of the House should know that—in the past six years, this government has contributed a total of $399.5 million towards the forest industry expenditures on the construction and maintenance of forest access roads. In fact, we uploaded those costs that had been previously downloaded by a previous government, recognizing the challenges the forestry industry faced. In each year of that program, forest industry expenditures have obviously been important. We want to make sure we continue to support them.

Certainly, we know that with the economic times, this government has had to make some tough financial decisions. We continue to support the forest industry access road funding. There may be a reduction this year, but we’re going to do what we can to meet the commitments. But there’s been over $400 million over the last six years—a pretty substantial investment—in our support for the forestry sector.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Randy Hillier: Minister, it’s disgraceful that you’ve cut this economically important program without notice to the industry. Such actions are unfair and show no respect for the economy of northern Ontario.

Your lack of respect for the north is not new. You abandoned them on Bill 191. You shut down debate on Bill 151. Last week, the Premier couldn’t even be bothered to show up at FONOM. The government has treated the north poorly, but now you’ve decided to abandon the basic principles of fairness, warning and decency.

You didn’t list these cuts in the budget just two months ago. Now it’s clear who is getting stuck with the bill for your secret OPSEU deal. Minister, you are cutting programs for northern forestry so that your government can dump more cash into the Toronto unions’ pork barrel.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: We took the cost of the forest access roads off the backs of the forestry companies and uploaded them back to the provincial government. A previous government downloaded those costs. We have spent $400 million on forest access roads, in addition to other forestry incentive programs. We’ve flowed over $750 million to the forestry sector.

We are working closely with industry related to our modernization of the forest tenure process in the province of Ontario, listening very closely to industry in that regard as well. We are very, very proud of the support we have in the forestry sector. We have great confidence in the reinvigoration and revitalization of the forestry sector, and we’ll continue to work closely with the industry in terms of the road access funding, because we recognize how important that is in terms of supporting the sector as we move forward.

FOREST INDUSTRY

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Acting Premier. The McGuinty Liberals’ haphazard wood reallocation policy is costing jobs in yet another northern community. The Hudson sawmill close to Sioux Lookout has lost its wood allocation and, as a result, has filed for bankruptcy. Sioux Lookout was hit hard by the economic downturn, but now the community is being hit hard by their own government’s policies, which show complete disregard for the north.

My question is simple: How does the McGuinty government justify eliminating 65 more jobs in northern Ontario?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: To the Minister of Northern Development, Mines and Forestry.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Thanks very much for the question. Certainly, we are very, very pleased that through the wood supply competition, we’ve been able to make 26 separate announcements—talk to your colleague from Kenora–Rainy River—in terms of wood allocations going to Dryden Domtar; to Ignace, in terms of a pellet plant they’ve developed; and to many other communities in northern Ontario. We’re creating new jobs and retaining many other jobs. In fact, about 1,500 jobs have been created or retained as a result of this.

We are certainly conscious of the challenges faced with the community of Sioux Lookout related to the decision on the wood supply competition not going in their favour. The fact is, we are continuing to work with that community. We recognize that for any community that is not successful, that has an impact. But we cannot be more happy about the fact that we are creating thousands of jobs, putting Ontario’s wood back to work, and we will continue to work with all the communities, including Sioux Lookout, that are challenged by the decisions that were made by this very, very fair, unbiased competition that was put in place under the—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This is a government that allowed over 40,000 jobs to walk out of northern Ontario while they did nothing. The people of Sioux Lookout are rightfully angry that the government is taking away more jobs.

Sioux Lookout Mayor Dennis Leney said that there has been some interest from First Nations in the Hudson sawmill, but this government is denying the sawmill its wood supply, which makes it impossible for the mill to get back to work.

Why doesn’t this government award the wood supply to the town of Sioux Lookout and allow them to look for a financially viable operator? Why are the McGuinty Liberals so intent on destroying good jobs in Sioux Lookout as well as around northern Ontario?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: When we began the wood supply competition, which is an unprecedented amount of wood—it ended up being about nine million cubic metres of wood—we recognized that there were certain operations that had not been harvesting wood for one year, two years, sometimes three years, and there was a challenge in terms of some of those communities.

We put forward the competition on the basis of—they put their application forward. Some 115 proposals came forward, and we’ve had a series of good-news announcements, including, as I pointed out earlier, at Dryden Domtar, which the member from Kenora–Rainy River would be pleased about, I would think, and in terms of Ignace as well. Certainly, the challenge is there with Sioux Lookout, and that’s why we’re continuing to work with the community.

But indeed, this is about putting our wood back to work; it’s about putting workers back to work. When you look at the 1,500-plus jobs we’ve created or retained across the province, let alone the almost three million cubic metres of wood we’ve put back to work, this is a positive program that we all need to support, because we’re creating work for forestry workers all across the north.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr. Bruce Crozier: My question is for the Minister of Education. Today, People for Education put out a report stating that 56% of Ontario elementary schools have a teacher-librarian and that this number is down from 80% little more than a decade ago.

Minister, what can I tell my constituents about this? Has our support for librarians decreased?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: I’m very happy to respond to the question that has come from my colleague on behalf of his constituents. I would say to the honourable member that it’s important to distinguish, when they speak about the reductions in support for libraries, that that in fact did take place between 1998 and 2002.

Since 2003, since we’ve come to government, the number of full-time equivalent teacher-librarians and library technicians has increased by over 12%, from 2,892 positions to 3,240 positions this year. It is important to note that every new school built in the province of Ontario has accommodation for a library, because our government values the resource of a library in every school.

This is in addition to the commitment of $40 million since 2008 to support an estimated 160 positions—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): Thank you.

Mr. Bruce Crozier: Thank you, Minister. Today, the Toronto Star reported that the Windsor-Essex Catholic District School Board is planning to dismantle all of its libraries and has laid off all but four of their library technicians. Minister, this is of great concern to my constituents in the riding of Essex, as libraries are an integral part of a school and students rely on libraries to enhance their learning.

Minister, why has the board taken this approach? Is it because of underfunding?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: Again, following up on my previous answer, our government has only increased funding to libraries. It was the previous government that cut funding to libraries. Our government has only increased funding to libraries, and support to the Windsor Catholic board has increased by 34%, and that in the face of a declining enrolment of 17%.

We believe that it’s very important to provide boards with those resources. That’s why in every new school we build, we make sure that there is a library there. I’m sure that people in the community are going to be contacting the people they elected last October to have them understand that they too believe—because we’ve been hearing from parents about the value libraries have to support the learning of their children and their success.

TENDERING PROCESS

Mr. Frank Klees: To the Minister of Infrastructure. Since—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): It’s my first time in the chair during question period. I would ask the members to be gentle. Thank you.

Mr. Frank Klees: Speaker, I’d ask for the same consideration.

Since 2005, only contractors who are a signatory to an agreement between the city of Hamilton and the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America have been allowed to bid on city construction jobs. Limiting the competitive bid process could end up inflating the cost of the Pan Am stadium and velodrome stadium projects planned for Hamilton by millions of dollars. I’d like to know, from the Minister of Infrastructure: Can he give us his assurance that no contractor will be shut out of the bidding process for these projects and that Infrastructure Ontario will ensure a fair and open bidding process?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I’m pleased to answer that question. First of all, I want to say that the province of Ontario has had a very positive working relationship with the municipalities. Municipalities in Ontario have the right to make rules with respect to procurement and with respect to agreements with labour groups in their community. They’ve had that right for a considerable period of time.

We will work closely with the city of Hamilton on all infrastructure projects. In areas where the city has the right to make arrangements with labour groups or unions, we will respect the municipalities in that regard.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): The member from Newmarket–Aurora.

Mr. Frank Klees: In that case, the minister will listen to the city of Hamilton, which is claiming that the carpenters’ union monopoly agreement has cost the city as much as $10 million during a regular construction year. Applying that same monopoly agreement to the Pan Am projects will potentially inflate those projects by millions of dollars to the taxpayers of Ontario.

Will the minister, based on his assurance that he respects municipalities, undertake to ensure that all Pan Am Games infrastructure projects will be subject to an open bidding process in this province?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: The member should know that the construction industry across Ontario is extremely happy with our infrastructure program and our infrastructure spending. We have had, in the province of Ontario and across Canada, the most successful infrastructure program in the history of Canada, in the history of Ontario. It’s been exceptional.

We in the ministry have received almost no complaints whatsoever from the construction industry. Those complaints that we’ve received, we have met with individuals and we’re working out any concerns that they might have.

This has been the infrastructure government: the best infrastructure government in the history of the province of Ontario.

LABOUR RELATIONS

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour le ministre du Travail. During the Vale Inco strike in Voisey’s Bay, former Newfoundland premier Danny Williams set up an industrial inquiry commission to examine the strike. The commission reported that labour laws need to change to ensure foreign corporations “respond to Canadian labour relations values.”

In comparison, the Ontario government did nothing during or after the strike and left 3,000 workers on the picket lines for a year, to the detriment of the Sudbury economy and community. Unlike the Newfoundland government, Ontario’s government has buried its head in the sand and said that everything is good with our labour laws.

Will the minister review the protracted strikes and lockouts in our province?

Hon. Charles Sousa: On this side of the House, we are indeed very proud of the extensive work we’ve done with our labour groups. In Ontario, over the last eight years, we’ve had the best labour peace that we’ve had in all history. Ninety-nine per cent of all labour negotiations are done without lockout or strike, and we continue to advance on that cause. In situations where there are disputes, we have our mediators, our professional staff, available to them at all times.

We will continue to support the outstanding men and women who work in this province, who provide an excellent degree of service and make us competitive on the world stage, including those individuals in Sudbury.

M me France Gélinas: In Ontario we see a pattern of long strikes and lockouts. We see a new industry: providing security guards and replacement workers during strikes and lockouts. In Sudbury, Brantford, Vaughan, Trenton, Nanticoke, Toronto, Brampton, Mississauga, Bowmanville, Pembroke, Sarnia and Hamilton, we see protracted labour disputes, but the minister says all is good with our labour laws.

Will the McGuinty government follow Newfoundland’s lead and set up a commission of inquiry to examine all of those prolonged, protracted labour disputes here in Ontario?

Hon. Charles Sousa: We will continue to support our labour groups. We’ll also continue to support the contracts that are in place. We will continue to support those workers and what makes Ontario competitive. We will have our contracts.

What we won’t do is go back to the days when there was constant disruption and constant disputes or to the time when the NDP, when they were ripping up their contracts and introducing social contracts. That is not what this side is about. We are not going to propose any more antagonism. We certainly want fair agreements. We want people to negotiate at collective bargaining, and we encourage the collective bargaining process.

TAXATION

Mr. Phil McNeely: My question is for the Minister of Revenue. Minister, you recently appeared before the Standing Committee on Estimates, where you tabled the average annual savings and costs by household income as a result of our government’s comprehensive tax reform package. Minister, you showed that, for households in Ontario with an income of $150,000 or less, families will break even or be ahead with this package. You also mentioned a list of prominent politicians, including Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his finance minister, who are supportive of the tax harmonization.

We know the federal Conservatives support tax harmonization. Will the minister tell us who else of note supports harmonization?

Hon. Sophia Aggelonitis: I want to take this opportunity to thank the member from Ottawa–Orléans. He’s doing a great job in his riding, and he’s letting his constituents know about the HST and our comprehensive tax package. He’s doing a great job, so thank you very much for that.

The member is right: We did receive a lot of federal support. In fact, the federal government played a crucial role in supporting Ontario’s move to adopting the HST. It provided Ontario with some generous incentives to harmonize, such as $4.3 billion in transition support and agreeing to administer the HST at no charge, among other things.

Here’s what Minister Flaherty, Canada’s Minister of Finance, said: “I have long said provincial sales tax harmonization is the single most important step provinces with retail sales taxes could take to improve the competitiveness of Canadian businesses.”

The real question is, where do they stand?

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): Supplementary?

Mr. Phil McNeely: Minister, if the total household income is less than $150,000 on average, a family breaks even or is slightly ahead with our new tax reform package. I note that this is because our tax package includes $12 billion in tax relief for Ontario families.

I also know that Jack Mintz, an economist, has reviewed our comprehensive tax package and said that the HST will strengthen our economy over the next 10 years, as it will (1) attract an additional $47 billion in investment and (2) add 600,000 jobs to our economy over that 10 years, and (3) the earning power of Ontarians would be increased 10%.

Minister, this all seems positive, yet the opposition parties are not supporting it—a rookie mistake if I ever saw one.

Hon. Sophia Aggelonitis: There were a couple of other quotes I wanted to use in the first question. The first one is from a member whom I have a lot of great respect for, and that’s the member for Newmarket–Aurora. He says, “No one can argue with wanting a more simplified tax process. I think we all support that.” I would agree.

The other quote I’d like to share is from Senator Bob Runciman. He said, “I think, in theory, our party is supportive of harmonization.”

But here’s someone I think we all respect. He says, “The HST, which many people love to hate, is nonetheless good economic and tax policy if we want to create jobs in the province of Ontario. And you know what, it took some courage to do it.” That was John Tory at the CivicAction summit.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): There being no deferred votes, this House stands in recess until 1 o’clock this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1144 to 1300.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I’m pleased to rise today to recognize the Ontario fruit wineries that are here at Queen’s Park today for the selection of the Ontario legislative fruit wine. The PC caucus has been pleased to work with them, and I’m looking forward to speaking with them this evening and enjoying great Ontario fruit wines.

Mr. Reza Moridi: I’m pleased to welcome Ms. Joung-Ran Lim, Mr. Han Park, Mr. Young-Woo Kim and Mr. Edmund Luk from Richmond Hill to the House today.

Mr. John O’Toole: I’m pleased to introduce a very good friend—and a very excellent farm operation in my riding of Durham—Jim Millson, who’s on the Dairy Farmers of Ontario.

Mr. Bob Delaney: It gives me special pleasure to introduce to the House, in the members’ east gallery, Tea Rosic, who is serving as my student intern. Her brother Andrej had previously served as a legislative page in this House. I welcome her on her first visit to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I, too, would like to introduce someone from the Dairy Farmers of Ontario: John Palmer, who represents—I’m not sure of the number of the district, but it’s Waterloo and Oxford. He’s done a wonderful job for a great number of years. We thank you very much for being with us today, John.

Mr. Dave Levac: I guess it’s my turn to introduce a dairy farmer. He’s one of the big shots in the associations, and he’s got this growing agenda of the number of things he’s done in farming in the riding of Brant, the province of Ontario and the country of Canada: Mr. Bill Emmott. Thanks very much for joining us, Bill. You’re going to take grief for that, I know.

Mr. Robert Bailey: I’d like to introduce a friend of mine, a councillor from the township of Enniskillen, John Phair, in the west members’ gallery. He’s also a journalist with the Ontario Farmer.

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I’d like to introduce several members of the arts and culture community in Oakville who will be joining us momentarily: Megan Whittington from the Oakville Arts Council; Bernadette Shaw from the Oakville Arts Council; Jean Gandubert from CommUnity Arts Space; Heather Hogan from the Halton Multicultural Council; and Wan Shi Liu from Sheridan College.

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I welcome back again this afternoon—because they didn’t get enough this morning—Gisèle Hébert from my local children’s aid society, and Rick Sapinski, the chair of our children’s aid society. Great folks from my riding of Nipissing.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

DAIRY FARMERS

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: On behalf of the PC caucus, I’m pleased to rise today to thank the Dairy Farmers of Ontario for coming to Queen’s Park and to recognize their contribution to our province.

Dairy is the largest agricultural sector in Ontario. Over 4,800 dairy farmers produce 2.5 billion litres of milk each year, enough to fill the Rogers Centre twice.

The Dairy Farmers also contribute to our province in other ways. They operate the very successful elementary school milk program, which gets milk into 70% of Ontario schools, and I know they are looking to increase that percentage to ensure that even more Ontario children get access to nutritious milk.

Ontario PC leader Tim Hudak and I will be looking forward to meeting with the Dairy Farmers of Ontario this afternoon, and the PC Party will reiterate our commitment to supply management.

We are looking forward to hearing more about some of their great programs, including the new farmer quota program, which is an initiative that the DFO started to help young farmers who may not have the resources to get into dairy farming. We’re also looking forward to hearing what the government can do to help them.

Dairy farmers, like all farmers, are impacted by increasing hydro rates and smart meters. In fact, a dairy farmer recently had a smart meter installed and called my colleague from Simcoe–Grey to ask the Premier how he was supposed to teach his cows to tell time.

Again, I thank the Dairy Farmers for coming to Queen’s Park. Tim Hudak and I look forward to meeting with them this afternoon.

THE CHILDREN’S STOREFRONT

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I want to take the time today to recognize the efforts of an organization that has been providing outstanding services for parents and children in my community, The Children’s Storefront.

The Children’s Storefront has been an icon for Trinity–Spadina parents for about 35 years. As the first child-parent centre in Ontario, the Storefront paved the way for many of the free programs now in existence.

The Storefront’s mission has always been to be accessible to all families with young children. It’s for that reason that they do not charge a fee for their services. There is no structured programming at the Storefront, which means that everyone is welcome at any time. For parents adapting to the needs of their young children, this kind of scheduling is welcomed with open arms. The Storefront receives visits from 7,000 adults and 12,000 children a year. Run on a shoestring budget, available monies have been carefully and deliberately spent on children’s literature and timeless toys.

The importance of the centre was made obvious when the entire community rallied to raise $250,000 to pay for a new venue when the old one burned down in a fire. I wish The Children’s Storefront, its staff and participants all the best for continued success in their new location at Bloor and Shaw St., and for the continued success of their programs.

HAN PARK

Mr. Reza Moridi: I rise here today to recognize the extraordinary achievements of one of my constituents, Mr. Han Gil Park, who is a grade 12 student at Richmond Green Secondary School in Richmond Hill.

As we all know, the recent earthquake and tsunami in Japan devastated many across the world, especially those in the affected areas. The two tragic events killed more than 10,000 people and affected many Canadians here and abroad.

To help these victims, Han Gil Park decided to undertake a project to help those who were left without shelter or food. Initially, this good Samaritan had planned to raise $1,000 in one week by folding paper cranes and asking for donations amongst his peers at school. His fundraising mission took off rapidly in the school and, with the helping hands of fellow schoolmates, he eventually raised more than $1,800 and reached his goal of folding more than 1,000 paper cranes.

One of the teachers, Ms. Morris, was most helpful in assisting with the paper crane fundraising project. Mr. Parks’s efforts and accomplishments set a fine example to the youth in our society, and show us how connected and caring the youth today are.

On behalf of all Ontarians and the residents of Richmond Hill, I would like to thank Han Gil Park for his dedication and devotion.

NORTH GRENVILLE PUBLIC LIBRARY

Mr. Steve Clark: I rise today to celebrate the opening of the North Grenville Public Library. Last week, I was excited to have the opportunity for a sneak peek of this wonderful facility, which doesn’t officially open until May 28. I attended the groundbreaking of the $5.1-million library in the heart of Old Town Kemptville last June. Ever since, anticipation has grown as each new brick has been added to that 10,000-square-foot building.

The opening of this state-of-the-art library is the final

chapter in a story that began as a dream some 10 years ago. Having seen the inside, I can assure people who have worked so hard over the past decade one thing: You won’t be disappointed. The fabulous new library provides the perfect space for minds young and old to expand their horizons.

This, however, is a tale about creating more than a building. Governments, including the forward-thinking municipality, provided $4 million for the bricks and mortar, and for over three years, the Room to Read campaign has raised $1 million to give the library the books, the technology and the furnishings that are at its heart.

With each donation, whether it was the toonie that the youngster gave at a yard sale or the amazing $150,000 gift from the Norenberg family, for whom the building will be named, the campaign was building something else. They’ve created a more tightly connected community by proving that great things happen when people work together for a good cause.

For everyone involved, I say congratulations. I look forward to checking out my first book there soon.

BUDDHA’S LIGHT

VEGETARIAN FOOD FAIR

Mr. Bob Delaney: Yesterday, I attended the Buddha’s Light vegetarian food fair at the Fo Guang Shan Temple in the village of Meadowvale. We were kindly welcomed by Abbess Chueh Chu and by some 4,000 community members who attended the fair throughout the day.

Despite the wet weather, guests enjoyed the temple’s atmosphere of serenity, peace and harmony. The fair’s opening ceremonies always include a multi-faith world peace blessing. Representatives of different faiths brought their greetings. Traditional practices of bathing the Buddha, a peace bell blessing and a spectacular dragon dance also adorned the occasion.

The Buddha’s Light International Association presented a cheque to the University of Toronto Faculty of Social Work for $30,000 for programs to help immigrant students and families. Guests enjoyed the famous food fair and dined on an assortment of traditional vegetarian oriental foods along with community members.

The Fo Guang Shan’s food fair and Chinese New Year celebration are annual events. Guests share the temple and its Buddhist community’s compassion and tranquility. The temple has a library, souvenir shop and tea room open year-round to the public. The Fo Guang Shan temple is a landmark of beauty and humility that brightens our community in Meadowvale.

GASOLINE TAX

Mr. John O’Toole: The McGuinty government’s harmonized sales tax adds 8% to the cost of gasoline and diesel fuel in Ontario. This means that the McGuinty government is siphoning an estimated $1.5 billion from the wallets of Ontario drivers every year.

You might think that a government with a windfall of that size would at least take the extra gas revenue and spend it on better roads, bridges and transportation infrastructure in our rural communities of Ontario. They have all this money, yet, a deficit. But this government is so out of touch that they’re wasting hard-earned taxpayers’ money on expensive energy experiments, secret Samsung deals, more pay increases, more red tape and bigger bureaucracy.

Over 100 municipalities endorsed the resolution asking the government to invest some of its HST revenue from gas and diesel into transportation infrastructure. The resolution is being circulated by the CAA South Central Ontario and the Ontario Good Roads Association.

Like the vast majority of Ontarians, I know Ontario can’t afford this HST and we certainly can’t afford a government that collects an extra $1.5 billion at the gas pump and won’t share it with the motorists who really put the money in in the first place. I remain very concerned that Premier McGuinty will raise your taxes, despite all the Liberal promises. I remain concerned. That’s what he’s always done. That’s what he’ll continue to do: raise the taxes every time he gets a chance.

ANDREW FLECK

CHILD CARE SERVICES

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: I’m pleased to recognize Andrew Fleck Child Care Services, which is celebrating their 100th anniversary of service to Ottawa’s families. Since the beginning, they have been a vital, progressive and compassionate service for generations of Ottawa’s children.

Opening in November 1911, they came into being to serve a very new need: proper care for children whose mothers had no choice but to work to support their families. Through poverty or the absence of a husband or father, these women faced very dire choices, and it’s a point of pride that this service began to assist these women in difficult circumstances. The driving force in these early years was Gertrude Fleck, who in 1931 donated the building they still occupy in the name of her late husband Andrew. The organization may bear his name, but it was her life’s work.

Andrew Fleck Child Care Services now has a full-time staff of 120 people, operates 11 programs in six locations and provides a continuum of child care, information, support and early years services to over 4,300 children and 27,000 families in Ottawa each year. They strive for high-quality, affordable, accessible, accountable and inclusive child care that promotes the optimum physical, emotional, social and intellectual development of the child, something I’m proud to say this government believes in also. I would like to—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you.

BLADDER CANCER

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel: I’d like to welcome David Guttman and Jack Moon to the House today; both are bladder cancer survivors. Together they started the Canadian Bladder Cancer Network, or CBCAN, a nationally registered charity to raise awareness of bladder cancer.

What many Ontarians may not realize is that according to Cancer Care Ontario, bladder cancer is the ninth most common cancer in Canada and it’s the third most common cancer facing men. Unfortunately, bladder cancer doesn’t have the profile of other cancers, such as breast or prostate cancer. That’s why the work of the Canadian Bladder Cancer Network is so important.

An Ontario-wide media campaign started on May 9 and will continue until June 1. On Saturday, May 28, the CBCAN will commemorate Bladder Cancer Awareness Day and will hold the first major bladder cancer education meeting in Canada.

CBCAN continues to raise awareness of this cancer and help those living with the disease. Last September, the group held its first awareness walk. In fact, the largest walk raised over $10,000 right here in Toronto. This fall, CBCAN will hold walks all over Canada to further raise awareness and funds to support research into the cure for this disease. CBCAN has also helped patients in remote places to locate and connect with specialists in health care centres that specialize in bladder cancer.

On behalf of all Ontarians, I’d like to thank our guests for their commitment to raising awareness of bladder cancer. Of course, we all know that more needs to be done but CBCAN has certainly started us well on our way.

OAKVILLE ARTS AND CULTURE

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: In the members’ gallery this afternoon, I just introduced several members from the dynamic arts and culture community in Oakville. Earlier in the session, I had the opportunity to host a round table. We discussed the challenges, the dreams, the strategies and the vision for the future of arts in my community. The round table was held in partnership with the Oakville Arts Council and set up to provide a local united voice for advocating and promoting the welfare of the arts.

We know the importance of the arts. As Megan Whittington of the Oakville Arts Council put it at the round table, arts and culture help to regenerate communities. Cultural industries create job growth and they turn ordinary cities into destination cities. The arts also help keep people happy and healthy. The participants work together to propose ideas that would benefit the arts and culture community.

These ideas were formed into an excellent policy brief. This brief will be submitted to the Minister of Tourism and Culture for his review.

I’d like to thank Megan of the Oakville Arts Council for the partnership on the round table and my sincere thanks to the many participants in the development of this policy brief. I think it’s going to make Oakville a better community.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I seek unanimous consent to put forward a motion without notice regarding meeting times for the Standing Committee on the Legislative Assembly.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Agreed? Agreed.

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I move that in addition to its regular meeting time, the Standing Committee on the Legislative Assembly be authorized to meet from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. on Wednesday, May 18, 2011, for the purpose of clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 188,

An Act to amend the McMichael Canadian Art Collection Act.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The members have heard the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Motion agreed to.

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I move that pursuant to standing order 6(c)(ii), the House shall meet from 6:45 p.m. to 12 midnight on Monday, May 16, 2011.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Ms. Smith has moved government notice of motion number 66. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Speaker?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): A point of order?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Yes, a point of order.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Okay. The member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke on a point of order.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Speaker, I apologize for not saying what I was asking for.

Things move so quickly here, but the member for Wellington–Halton Hills does have a bill to be introduced and I’m asking for unanimous consent to allow that to happen.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Ted Arnott: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I want to thank the members of the House for allowing that. I was just distracted for a minute and I apologize.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

BANNING COLLUSION IN

ELECTORAL ADVERTISING ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 INTERDISANT

LA COLLUSION DANS LE CADRE

DE LA PUBLICITÉ ÉLECTORALE

Mr. Arnott moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 195,

An Act to amend the Election Finances Act to ban collusion in electoral advertising / Projet de loi 195, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur le financement des élections pour interdire la collusion dans le cadre de la publicité électorale.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

First reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member for a short statement.

Mr. Ted Arnott: The bill amends the Election Finances Act to ban third parties from colluding with a registered political party, a constituency association or a candidate when engaging in third party election advertising.

It also extends the limit that

section 38 of the act imposes on campaign expenses incurred by a registered party, and persons or bodies acting on its behalf during a campaign period, to include advertising expenses incurred by a third party during a campaign period, if the third party acted with the express or implied knowledge and consent of a registered party.

The chief financial officer of every party, constituency association or candidate is required to include those expenses in the financial statement that

section 42 of the act requires the officer to file with the chief elections officer.

PETITIONS

DOG OWNERSHIP

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

“Whereas aggressive dogs are found among all breeds and mixed breeds; and

“Breed-specific legislation has been shown to be an expensive and ineffective approach to dog bite prevention; and

“Problem dog owners are best dealt with through education, training and legislation encouraging responsible behaviour;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“To repeal the breed-specific sections of the Dog Owners’ Liability Act (2005) and to implement legislation that encourages responsible ownership of all dog breeds and types.”

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to introduce this petition.

M. Michael Prue: J’ai une pétition ici à l’Assemblée législative de l’Ontario :

« Attendu que le Toronto District School Board a déclaré que l’école Essex West school et le Toronto West collegiate institute ne sont pas nécessaires à leurs fins dans le sens du règlement 444 de la

Loi sur l’éducation encadrant l’aliénation de biens immeubles excédentaires;

« Attendu que le Conseil scolaire Viamonde a déclaré son intérêt à se prévaloir de la priorité que lui accorde le règlement 444 pour acquérir ces propriétés;

« Attendu que le ministère de l’Éducation de l’Ontario a confirmé à maintes reprises, au cours de la dernière décennie, que des fonds étaient disponibles pour que le conseil puisse acquérir de nouvelles écoles aussitôt que des édifices adéquats seraient disponibles;

« Nous, soussignés, membres de la communauté francophone et francophile du grand Toronto, adressons à l’Assemblée législative de l’Ontario la pétition suivante :

« Que le gouvernement de l’Ontario respecte les garanties données au conseil par son ministère de l’Éducation et permette l’achat par le conseil des édifices du Essex West school et du Toronto West collegiate institute dans le respect de l’esprit et de la lettre du règlement 444 de la

Loi sur l’éducation de l’Ontario ».

Je suis d’accord et je vais signer.

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

Mr. Robert Bailey: This petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

“Whereas the Ontario provincial government has unilaterally ordered the closing of the Owen Sound and Walkerton jails”—and the Sarnia jail—“with no public input; and

“Whereas staff of both facilities will be forced to relocate from their home communities and the two rural municipalities will lose up to $3 million in wages spent there; and

“Whereas the local aboriginal offenders will be forced away from their communities and local native resources. All offenders will be moved out of their localities, rehabilitative resources and family visitation. Intermittent sentenced offenders will have jobs placed in jeopardy as the travel to Penetanguishene will be too great; and

“Whereas rural communities hard hit by recession and manufacturing job loss need these well-paying jobs in their community;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“That Premier McGuinty supports the Owen Sound and Walkerton” and Sarnia jails and lets them remain open until such time as a new regional correctional facility can be opened.

I agree with this, support it with my signature and send it down with Allison.

« Attendu que le Toronto District School Board a déclaré que l’école Essex West school et le Toronto West collegiate institute ne sont pas nécessaires à leurs fins dans le sens du règlement 444 de la

Loi sur l’éducation encadrant l’aliénation de biens immeubles excédentaires;

« Attendu que le Conseil scolaire Viamonde a déclaré son intérêt à se prévaloir de la priorité que lui accorde le règlement 444 pour acquérir ces propriétés;

« Attendu que le ministère de l’Éducation de l’Ontario a confirmé à maintes reprises, au cours de la dernière décennie, que des fonds étaient disponibles pour que le conseil puisse acquérir de nouvelles écoles aussitôt que des édifices adéquats seraient disponibles;

« Nous, soussignés, membres de la communauté francophone et francophile du grand Toronto, adressons à l’Assemblée législative de l’Ontario la pétition suivante :

« Que le gouvernement de l’Ontario respecte les garanties données au conseil par son ministère de l’Éducation et permette l’achat par le conseil des édifices du Essex West school et du Toronto West collegiate institute dans le respect de l’esprit et de la lettre du règlement 444 de la

Loi sur l’éducation de l’Ontario ».

Je suis d’accord avec cette pétition.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mr. John O’Toole: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to present petitions on behalf of my riding of Durham, and more specifically from Lou Speziale. The petition reads as follows:

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas citizens are concerned that contaminants in materials used as fill for pits and quarries may endanger water quality and the natural environment of the greenbelt; and

“Whereas the Ministry of the Environment has a responsibility and a duty to protect the sensitive areas of the greenbelt and provincially sensitive wetlands; and

“Whereas the government of Ontario has the lead responsibility to provide the tools to lower-tier governments to plan, protect and enforce clear, effective policies governing the application and permitting process for the placement of fill in abandoned pits and quarries; and

“Whereas this process requires clarification regarding rules respecting what materials may be used to rehabilitate or fill abandoned pits and quarries;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, ask the Minister of the Environment to initiate a moratorium on the clean fill application and permit process on the greenbelt until there are clear rules; and we further ask that the provincial government take all necessary actions to protect our water and prevent contamination of the greenbelt, specifically at 4148 Regional Highway 2, Newcastle”—often known as Morgans Road—“and Lakeridge Road in Durham” region.

I’m pleased to sign and support this petition and present it to one of the pages, Allison.

« Attendu que le Toronto District School Board a déclaré que l’école Essex West school et le Toronto West collegiate institute ne sont pas nécessaires à leurs fins dans le sens du règlement 444 de la

Loi sur l’éducation encadrant l’aliénation de biens immeubles excédentaires;

« Attendu que le Conseil scolaire Viamonde a déclaré son intérêt à se prévaloir de la priorité que lui accorde le règlement 444 pour acquérir ces propriétés;

« Attendu que le ministère de l’Éducation de l’Ontario a confirmé à maintes reprises, au cours de la dernière décennie, que des fonds étaient disponibles pour que le conseil puisse acquérir de nouvelles écoles aussitôt que des édifices adéquats seraient disponibles;

« Nous, soussignés, membres de la communauté francophone et francophile du grand Toronto, adressons à l’Assemblée législative de l’Ontario la pétition suivante :

« Que le gouvernement de l’Ontario respecte les garanties données au conseil par son ministère de l’Éducation et permette l’achat par le conseil des édifices du Essex West school et du Toronto West collegiate institute dans le respect de l’esprit et de la lettre du règlement 444 de la

Loi sur l’éducation de l’Ontario ».

J’appuie cette pétition. Je vais y afficher mon nom et je demande à Rachel de l’amener à la Greffière.

PHOTO IDENTIFICATION

Mr. Bob Delaney: I’m pleased to present this petition addressed to the Ontario Legislative Assembly. I’d like to thank Alison Saunders of Kenninghall Boulevard in Streetsville for having signed and sent it to me. It reads as follows:

“Whereas many seniors, visually impaired persons and other non-drivers do not need or are not eligible for a driver’s licence; and

“Whereas many day-to-day transactions such as cashing of cheques; opening a new bank account at a financial institution; returning merchandise to a retail store; boarding a domestic flight; gaining admittance to bars, clubs and casinos; checking in at a hotel; obtaining a credit card, and even renting a video require government-issued photo identification; and

“Whereas Ontario’s Photo Card Act, 2008, sets the legislative framework required to deliver a non-licence photo identification;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“That the province of Ontario develop a government-issued photo identification card and deliver, in 2011, an Ontario photo card identification for residents of the province over the age of 16 who cannot or choose not to drive.”

It’s a reasonable request; I’m pleased to sign and support this petition and to ask page Jonathan to carry it for me.

WIND TURBINES

Mr. John O’Toole: Another group of petitions from the riding of Durham reads as follows:

“Whereas industrial wind turbine developments have raised concerns among citizens over health, safety and property values;

“Whereas the Green Energy Act allows wind turbine developments to bypass meaningful public input and municipal approvals;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“That the Minister of the Environment revise the Green Energy Act to allow full public input and municipal approvals on all industrial wind farm developments and that a moratorium on wind development be declared until an independent, epidemiological study is completed into the health and environmental impacts of industrial wind turbines.”

This is similar to the resolution by Tim Hudak, and it’s submitted on behalf of Heather Rutherford and others in my riding of Durham.

M me France Gélinas: J’ai une pétition qui m’a été remise par Conrad Mazerolle de l’AEFO :

J’appuie cette pétition, je vais y afficher mon nom et je demande à Melanie de l’amener au Greffier.

TAXATION

Mr. John O’Toole: Fortunately, I have another petition here that I could read, and it is similar to the other one as well. It says:

“Whereas Premier McGuinty is increasing taxes yet again”—surprise—“with his new 13% combined sales tax, at a time when families and businesses can least afford it;

“Whereas, by 2010, Dalton McGuinty’s new tax will increase the cost of goods and services that families and businesses buy and use every day. A few examples include: coffee, newspapers and magazines; gas for the car, home heating oil and electricity; haircuts, dry cleaning and personal grooming; home renovations and home services; veterinary care and pet care; legal services, the sale of resale homes, and funeral arrangements,” and the list goes on;

“Whereas Dalton McGuinty promised he wouldn’t raise taxes in the 2003 election. However, in 2004, he brought in the health tax, which costs upwards of $600 to $900 per individual. And now he is raising our taxes again;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“That the Dalton McGuinty government wake up to” and have respect for “Ontario’s current economic reality and stop raising taxes on Ontario’s hard-working families and businesses.”

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I move that, pursuant to standing order 47 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 186,

An Act to amend the Tobacco Tax Act, when the bill is next called as a government order the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill without further debate or amendment and at such time the bill shall be ordered referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs; and

That the vote on second reading may be deferred pursuant to standing order 28(h); and

That the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday, May 19, 2011, during its regular meeting time for the purpose of public hearings on the bill, and at 2 p.m. on Monday, May 30, 2011, for clause-by-clause consideration of the bill; and

That the deadline for filing amendments to the bill with the clerk of the committee shall be 4 p.m. on Wednesday, May 25, 2011. At 5 p.m. on Monday, May 30, 2011, those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved, and the Chair of the committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto. The committee shall be authorized to meet beyond the normal hour of adjournment for clause-by-clause consideration on Monday, May 30, 2011.

Any division required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put and taken in succession with one 20-minute waiting period allowed pursuant to standing order 129(a); and

That the committee shall report the bill to the House no later than Tuesday, May 31, 2011. In the event that the committee fails to report the bill on that day, the bill shall be deemed to be passed by the committee and shall be deemed to be reported to and received by the House; and

That, upon receiving the report of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith, and at such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading, which order may be called that same day; and

That, when the order for third reading of the bill is called, one hour shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill, apportioned equally among the recognized parties. At the end of this time, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment; and

That the vote on third reading may be deferred pursuant to standing order 28(h); and

That, in the case of any division relating to any proceedings on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to five minutes.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Ms. Smith has moved government notice of motion 75. Debate?

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: After, I guess, three days that we’ve debated this bill in the House, and it’s been debated for six and a half hours—this is May 16, 2011. This problem has been going on in Ontario for, let me see, seven, eight, nine years, and has been getting worse every year.

In 2009, I believe, there were studies published that showed that 50% of the tobacco in the butts outside of schoolyards and other public buildings was illegal tobacco. There are a huge number of areas that this impacts in the province of Ontario. This has been ongoing, and now the government has come up with a bill which I suspect may not be all that successful.

If we take a look at the illegal tobacco distribution as we see it in Ontario today, we see state trucks and tractor-trailers travelling around the province. These are large vehicles that are carrying contraband tobacco. They come out of one or two locations. They come out of Indian reserves—Six Nations and the Indian reserve in eastern Ontario that sits on the border between Quebec, Ontario and the United States. Apparently, the RCMP cannot seize the trucks that move between Indian reservations, but if they’re not moving between Indian reservations they can be seized, and for some reason they are not being seized.

This bill talks about the ability of police officers. When they find illegal cigarettes on an individual, they can phone a revenue agent and get permission to seize the cigarettes and fine the person from whom they’re seizing the cigarettes. It seems like a rather difficult process to go through in order to achieve the removal of a pack of cigarettes, or half a pack of cigarettes, that an individual might be carrying on him at any given time. Meanwhile, the tractor-trailers and state trucks travel up and down our highways, seemingly unavailable to be pulled over and searched and the perpetrators charged.

But aside from those rather obvious weaknesses in this bill, there are a number of other impacts that illegal cigarettes have on our society. Perhaps one of the most important and one of the most dastardly impacts they have is on young people. Young people find these cigarettes in vans, trunks of cars, pickup trucks, what have you, always parked near a schoolyard.

Whether or not these can be found by police, whether or not they can be found by the RCMP, or whether or not they can be found by revenue agents seems to be up to some question, but almost every grade 8 or grade 9 student in Ontario knows where to find these vans. It seems to me that if they can buy a pack of cigarettes as easily as they can buy a pack of gum, that’s probably not a good thing for the young people in Ontario, and I think the government knows this.

I think it’s a shame that this government has waited until the eighth year of its mandate to take action on this scourge that is taking place in Ontario.

It also teaches young people that there’s a law for some things and there’s not a law for other things. It doesn’t teach them any respect in any general way for a law that operates in Ontario.

The other thing that comes to mind is that when you’re buying illegal cigarettes from somebody who operates with immunity, or supposed immunity, near a schoolyard, it would seem to me that you could probably buy other things from that individual as well. He may not have them in stock, but I think you could probably buy just about whatever illegal drug you wanted to buy, for delivery at some later date or at some other location. Once you have a delivery system for illegal materials, it would seem to me that it would be fairly easy to expand the products that you’re selling into other illegal activities, and that also would impact our young people in a very, very negative way.

It also has a significant impact on the taxpayers of Ontario. Every single taxpayer in Ontario is paying a price for illegal cigarettes. This government could have done something about that over the eight years that it has been in power in Ontario, over eight years where this problem has grown from being somewhat insignificant, with perhaps 5%, 6%, 7% of cigarettes being smuggled or being illegal contraband cigarettes, to the point now where it represents almost 50% of the cigarettes in Ontario.

The last number I saw, I think, was 48-point-something-something per cent of the cigarettes sold in Ontario were illegal tobacco. For taxpayers, that means a tremendous amount of lost revenue, perhaps $1 billion of lost revenue.

Now, $1 billion used to be a very significant part of our budget. When this government came to power—the last budget that we brought into this province, into this House, was $68 billion. That was the budget for Ontario. Today, that budget has skyrocketed to $124 billion, I think it was, last March. So $1 billion is a smaller percentage of that budget, but it is still a very, very significant amount of money. You could build a very modern, say, 400-bed hospital, with that kind of money.

Certainly, that kind of money would expand the Milton hospital to a point where it could actually handle the number of baby births that are occurring in Milton. That would be a good thing, if we could control that tax from the lost sale of cigarettes. It’s had that very negative impact on taxpayers over those eight years, and growing in importance, where today it is slightly in excess—the numbers I’ve been given seem to be slightly in excess of $1 billion. So every taxpayer in Ontario is paying a price for these illegal cigarettes that are being distributed across this province.

Contraband tobacco also has a tremendous impact on public security. It means that this unparalleled source of revenue from illegal or contraband cigarettes is flowing into the coffers of organized crime. First of all, I don’t think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out that if you have illegal cigarettes being distributed across Ontario, you need a distribution system that is extremely well organized. That distribution system is rumoured to be organized by the Hells Angels in the distribution system they have had for other products. This illegal money from contraband tobacco is flowing into the coffers of that organization.

That organization is also involved in other illegal activities that speak to the cost of doing business. Their costs of doing business are reduced because they have further business to do. The more business they do, the lower their cost of distribution can be. So it has a tremendous impact on public security and the ability of people to fight organized crime. The more money that organized crime has, of course, the more sophisticated they can be.

This huge amount of money that is flowing into the coffers of organized crime is a huge detriment to the people of Ontario and for the public security of the people of Ontario. That’s a very negative impact on Ontario, and has been a growing negative impact over the last eight years, starting out at a rather insignificant level of less than 5% of the tobacco sold in Ontario and growing to the point where it now represents 50%, or very close to 50%, of the tobacco sold in Ontario.

It also has a very negative impact on convenience store operators in Ontario. Convenience store operators have been servicing Ontario for many years. This government has put restrictions on how they sell cigarettes. You can’t see them anymore; they have to be behind a curtain or behind a door. Those impacts, I think, have been rather negative. They’ve been rather incidental and very minimal, but nonetheless, convenience stores have seen a tremendous drop in their sale of cigarettes, which is a major income provider for them—it’s a legal product being sold in Ontario in this case—and that has had a very negative impact on convenience store operators.

Those store operators have had a couple of issues. One, they were criticized years ago for supposedly selling cigarettes to minors, and they implemented a program that checks the ID of anyone who purchases tobacco products. In independent testing—someone going in trying to buy tobacco from a convenience store and being asked to show ID—I think that over 96% of tobacco sales were found to be legitimate, in that they did not sell to young people.

You can compare that 96% and put it in perspective: The other place they tested was the LCBO, with an underage person trying to buy alcohol, and the success of a younger underage person buying alcohol in LCBO stores—they came out at an 86% level, significantly below the convenience stores level of checking ID and making sure that young people didn’t buy tobacco in the case of convenience stores and alcohol in the case of the LCBO.

So they did a very good job, in my estimation, of checking to make sure that young people weren’t buying legal tobacco. Of course, the person who was selling illegal tobacco from the back of his van, out of the trunk of his car or the back of his pickup truck doesn’t actually check for identification or age. If the money’s on the counter, he takes the money and sells them the tobacco. That’s how that system works, and that’s what’s so very, very wrong about it.

The convenience store association in Ontario has had tremendous negative impact from the sale of illegal tobacco, to the point where, last year, two convenience stores per day went out of business in Ontario—two convenience stores per day. That’s a very significant rate. It’s a very significant problem, and this government hasn’t done anything about that, until the very last three weeks of their term of eight years that this problem has been a factor in this province.

It’s a growing problem, a growing crime, and it has had a growing impact on these people, whether it be young people, whether it be taxpayers, whether it be our security in the province, whether it be our honest merchants in our convenience stores.

It’s also been a problem over the last eight years for the aboriginal communities. Aboriginal communities are seen as being the site of distribution of this product. I don’t think it takes anyone’s imagination to understand that there are very, very few people—a very small percentage of the people—on a given reserve who would be impacted by this. They would all be impacted, but there would be very few of them who would be involved in the distribution of illegal cigarettes. That means that the vast majority—I’ve heard estimates of 90% or 95%—of First Nations living on reserves are negatively impacted.

They live in fear. They live in trepidation about what is going to happen to their children and what’s going to happen to their lives as this illegal activity gains more and more ground and continues to have a larger and larger influence on the activities that take place on their reserve.

I would suggest to the government that some of the elements that have the greatest impact against them in a negative way when this scourge of illegal tobacco comes to their doorstep—whether it be manufacturing or whether it be transportation, no matter how it gets there, it has a very negative impact on the vast majority of First Nations who live on our reserves. I think that’s also a great crime that this government hasn’t done anything about.

I would suggest that the sixth area that has a negative impact on the people of Ontario is the impact that it has on our social fabric in Ontario. It means that the citizens of Ontario lose faith in their government’s ability to enforce the law of the land and lose faith in their ability to protect individuals.

I come back to the case of Chartwell-Brown, the couple who was living on non-First Nations land, non-reserve land, just outside of Caledonia. They were living on the wrong side of the barricade. The Ontario Provincial Police failed to provide adequate protection for them. After two years or so of this treatment—two or three years, I think—they went to court, suing the OPP for lack of action. After two or three days in court, the Ontario government settled the issue by paying off Chartwell-Brown to drop the case. They were suing the government for $7 million. We don’t know what that settlement was, because the government made it secret.

Whatever Chartwell and Brown got in settlement was paid out of government revenues, and I would hasten to remind the government that all government revenues come out of the pockets of the taxpayers of Ontario. Whether it comes through gas tax or whether it comes through personal income tax or whether it comes through that lovely new issue that you have, the HST, the revenue, even the corporate sales taxes and business taxes, comes out of a portion of the profits of those businesses, and the profits of those businesses came from the pockets of Ontario taxpayers. So, one way or the other, those tax dollars came out of Ontario taxpayers’ pockets.

I suggest to the government, as I have done before, that Ontario taxpayers deserve to know how their money is being spent and therefore deserve to know what that settlement with Chartwell-Brown was. To keep something like that a secret—it’s like the Samsung contract. It’s a secret. The way the minister is answering the questions in the House today and last week, I’m not sure that the minister knows what’s in that contract. That contract with Samsung is secret. It supposedly deals with $7 billion.

One way or another, that $7 billion has some impact on the people of Ontario, the taxpayers of Ontario and the voters of Ontario. For that to be a secret contract and for the people of Ontario not to know how the government is operating with that amount of money, a significant portion of the provincial budget, which I mentioned before is about $124 billion, I think—$7 billion is 6.25% of that total budget; 5.25%, I think—that’s a significant amount. Why this government has kept that secret, and how they would have the unmitigated gall to keep that secret, I don’t know. I don’t understand that kind of government.

I think government should be open and respectful of taxpayers’ money.

To summarize, I would say that the government has acted very slowly on this. Now, all of a sudden, we have to go fast because we have a time allocation motion before us, so we have to hurry down the line and get this piece of legislation passed.

As has been pointed out in previous debates by this side of the House and by the third party, there are some serious loopholes in this piece of legislation as to whether or not it will have any positive impact on the flow of contraband tobacco. I think that anything that has a negative impact on the flow of contraband tobacco is probably a good thing, but I think we could be much more effective when we know that there are tractor-trailers coming out of certain places, and we know where those places are. The RCMP has lots of information on that that they’re willing to share with almost anyone. It’s in the papers every once in a while; you can read about it.

We think that those factories that manufacture at those shipping points that come across from the US—apparently 90% of it comes across from the US at one or two border points. It should be easy, or it shouldn’t be a huge difficulty, to shut some of that down. This government doesn’t seem to be able to do that, and that’s too bad for Ontario. It’s too bad for the young people of Ontario. It’s too bad for the taxpayers of Ontario. It has a negative impact. It’s too bad for the public security of Ontario.

It has a tremendously negative impact, and it really is a crime as to what it’s doing to the convenience store operators—families, in many cases, running a small convenience store. They’re under huge pressure, with at least two stores a day going bankrupt or shutting down in Ontario. That has been going on for the last year and a half or so, and that’s a shame.

It has been a shame for aboriginal communities. As I mentioned, they’re perhaps one of the hardest hit, because they live in fear. They live in an area in which—and which I don’t understand—while a very few people on the reserves, as a percentage of the population that is on the reserves, are being negatively impacted, it’s also a shame as to what it’s doing to our social fabric.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the time. I look forward to further debate on this. I would look forward to further time debating it—perhaps we could strengthen the law—but this time allocation motion is going to stop all that later today.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Further debate?

Mr. Howard Hampton: I’m pleased to have the opportunity to speak, first, to the time allocation motion and, secondly, to the bill itself in the context of time allocation.

The bill itself, Bill 186, is entitled “illegal tobacco.” I think the gist of the story is that this government wants people across Ontario to believe that finally, after many, many years of doing nothing about the distribution of illegal tobacco, illegal cigarettes and black market cigarettes in the province, it is in fact doing something. After all, it’s just before an election, and that’s when you usually find these kinds of bills that have a fancy title and are intended to lead people to believe that something is going to be done.

Unfortunately, when you read this bill, there’s not much there. In fact, it’s fair to say there is next to nothing there. I would say that this legislation is again, shall we say, just a preparation-for-election bill. It’s not going to do anything substantive, and it’s not going to do anything meaningful. It will give Liberal candidates the opportunity to say, in the run-up to the election, “We passed a bill to deal with illegal cigarettes and illegal tobacco.” But in functional terms, it’s not going to do much.

That’s probably why we’re facing time allocation here. People understand that after this the Legislature might sit for four or five more days before we recess for the summer, and then there’s going to be an election. I think that one of the reasons we’re seeing time allocation on this bill, and not seeing the discussion and debate one would want to have on such a serious issue, is because the government just wants to get it through and really doesn’t care that there isn’t much substance to the bill. I think that’s the reason for time allocation.

The government says, “Look, it’s not much of a bill. It’s not going to do much.” The most substantive part of the bill is the title, which is intended to give the impression that the government is starting to take the problem of illegal tobacco and illegal cigarettes seriously. So, let’s just ram it through.

Well, I don’t think that’s a very good idea. I don’t think it’s a good idea, because what it does is create a precedent where you don’t have to have thoughtful reflection on legislation, you don’t have to have thoughtful analysis of the problems and thoughtful analysis of what needs to be done, and you don’t have to have thoughtful analysis about what the repercussions are going to be. You don’t have to have thoughtful analysis about what the impact will be on the public: what positives, what negatives, what’s going to happen here?

I think that when you see this kind of stuff over and over again—and we’ve seen lots of it this spring—this is what leads to the public cynicism we see out there. This is what leads to people saying, “I just give up. I don’t want to pay attention, I don’t want to listen, I don’t want to watch, I don’t want to participate, because governments engage in this kind of silliness.”

It is, indeed, silly. There is not much in this bill that is goin